Mains power would do them lots of harm!It seems that you can... provided there's a clear warning and the shock wouldn't be enough to do serious harm
They can open fuel filter which will be red with dye.A farmer friend of mine was fed up with visits from the other group of travelers , who helped themselves to the fuel in his horsebox on a regular basis . He drained the tank , disconnected it and filled with a diesel cocktail , including some red and even roundup and sugar !! Sure enough it went , never had a visit since . He also ran a merc diesel car on red , had an auxillary tank in boot , normal tank was not connected but 3/4 full of road fuel .
And how would someone live with the knowledge that a neighbour's 5 year old may go awol andIt seems that you can... provided there's a clear warning and the shock wouldn't be enough to do serious harm
I'm not condoning it, just reporting. I meant to include this link in my post...And how would someone live with the fact that a neighbour's 5 year old may go awol and
cannot read the warning, may even have a weak heart? I'm certain such a vigilante would have a
few years in pokey to contemplate their actions!
I wrote in the 3rd person, I wasn't directing it at you!I'm not condoning it, just reporting. I meant to include this link in my post...
Consider this:I believe the had to be a level of reasonableness when deploying a deterrent. i.e. What is the impact of the deterent and what is the likelyhood of an innocent party getting involved/impacted?
This is a good example of someone getting fed up and putting up a deterrent without thinking it through properly and it resulting in tragic cicrumstances - https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/two-men-charged-over-death-16532357
Setting a "trap" for burglars that gave them a whack in the head if they forced open a locked door - sounds fine to me.
Doing the same if the door is to a public building and unlocked but just has a "no entry" sign on it - definately not as any innocent party could accidently go through the door irrespective of signage (may not be able to read; may not be able to read the language it is written in; may be blind).
Setting up a shotgun to fire if that locked door is forced open - totally dispropotionate deterrent.
In the case of the spiked fuel, an innocent party is not going to go up to a fuel store thinking it was free to use. That just doesn't happen. The only people who are going to access the fuel legitimately is the owner and no one else will access it for legitimate reasons. If the farmer set explosives up so the tank blew up when the fuel started to drain, then THAT would be disproportionate to the crime as the risk to life would be great (you don't get a death sentence handed down by the courts for theft, do you.), but spiking the fuel to cause inconvenience and possibly damage to a theives engine by using stolen fuel? seems a perfectly reasonable deterrent and it seemed to work as no more fuel was stolen. I don't think a "please do not steal" sticker would have worked? There was no loss of life or any potential loss of life. (Now if he was getting brake fluid stolen say and he tampered with that to make it corrosive to eat away at brake pipes, that could be considered OTT, but causing an engine to run bad and then break ... a broken-down vehicle is not generally dangerous)
And actually the farmer has lost out also as whatever fuel was stolen or not stolen, all the spiked fuel is probably no use for anything?
There was mention in a post about someone being culpable if they had a gun and it was stolen and used to hurt/kill someone? Well this is why there is a requirement to keep them in a gun safe. If someone breaks into a house and then a gun safe and steals a gun, the owner took reasonable precuations and has - and should feel - no guilt in the matter. Guns can be very dangerous and so additional safeguards are obviously needed. that goes without saying I would have thought.
I think the farmer is very irresponsible actually. What he should do is provide a strirrup pump so no thieves run the risk of getting ill when siphoning out the fuel. Also maybe some approved fuel containers for them to pump into? as, if say coke bottles were used and leaked, the farmer could be liable as it is his fuel being carried.Consider this ,
a farmer keeps getting his truck drained , so he does nothing but keep filling it up , a 13 year old boy knows his dad gets his diesel from the farm , and its easy no risk , so he goes and nicks some himself and puts it in his dads van takes it out for a joyride , but coz his dad doesnt maintain the van as hes got no care for anyone else the brakes fail and the lad goes down the road too fast cant brake for the bend and goes over a cliff the farmer feels guilty for not putting a 24 hour guard on the fuel but they all lived happily ever after !
When you say "unsecured" do you mean that it has to be a twist-lock fitting (rather than an emergency push-on one) or there has to be some kind of lock before you access the fuel filler?So proving locking does not work, as they do more damage defeating it. We've now opted for leaving them unsecured. Next pain is to find non locking fuel caps! Just a note unsecured fuel filler caps is an MOT failure!
So the next plan of defence is some kind of proximity device mounted within the bodywork. The idea is if someone reaches for the cap an alarm will sound. Waiting on the post man now. Watch this space.
So your MOT station want you to have a locking cap even though it is behind a flap anyway? or you don't have a flap? (sorry, I am not familiar with your van )As you say Dave, many modern vehicles have a locking or captured flap. This provides the security for the fuel cap, rather than the cap being locking itself.
It was something that I've been picked up on over the years getting vehicles MOT'd